Why The Volunteer Military Force Is The Right Choice

June 17, 1986|By A.J. Martin, a former director of accession and retention policy in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for manpower, reserve affairs and logistics. He is now a marketing management consultant.

The U.S. armed services have accomplished a transition to excellence in manning our forces on a voluntary basis. After decades of draft dependence, the military services, with the support of four presidents and Congress, have implemented a military manpower procurement system yielding recruit quality exceeding that of the draft era. The facts show that the voluntary system works well. It is the right choice to meet our peacetime military manpower requirements.

True, the services have been aided in their efforts by a resurgence of patriotism and pride in our armed forces, combined with more competitive pay, increased bonuses for enlistment and re-enlistment, more recruiting and advertising funds and enhanced educational benefits. Yet they have

The so-called ``baby bust`` has demanded much more of military service recruiting in the 1980s. The size of the 18-year-old age cohort has been declining steadily since 1978 and will reach its low point in 1992, about 25 percent below its 1978 size.

To date, the services` recruiters have more than met this challenge. Obviously, as the youth population declines, the increasing competition for the fewer quality individuals available will require pay for service members comparable with civilian alternatives, attractive enlistment and retention incentives and effective recruiting. Above all, it demands a satisfying in-service experience.

Who would suggest that our servicemen and women not be well compensated?

The evidence is overwhelming that brighter, better-educated young people respond best to economic and personal incentives. Personal and career development, quality of service life and funds for college are valued enlistment motivators among high-quality individuals. Patriotism surely counts, but young men and women who serve in the armed forces should not be expected to suffer financial sacrifices that are not shared by their civilian counterparts.

Today`s active enlisted force is of significantly higher quality in terms of high school graduates and aptitude test scores than is the comparable civilian population. For example, about 88 percent of the force hold high school diplomas and about 86 percent score average and above on the military`s aptitude test. The corresponding figures for the youth population are 75 percent and 69 percent respectively. For new recruits the numbers are even more impressive; both are at 93 percent. These quality indicators project to lower attrition and better training performance, which equate to better combat readiness of our military units.

No military`s enlisted force is likely to be representative of a nation`s total population. Even with the draft (maybe even especially with the draft), the enlisted force was never representative of our population in peacetime.

The military services are our nation`s best example of equal opportunity employment as they try to be racially and ethnically blind in accepting and retaining people. Nevertheless, social imbalances drive those treated less well by society more forcefully into opportunities in the military (and police and fire departments as well--one need only look to employment of the Irish in police departments in the first quarter of this century to see the process at work). This undesirable force, it seems, will be with us no matter how we man the military, whether by a voluntary system or by a draft.

A ``quality draft`` to select only those scoring even higher on standardized tests would create a different problem. Would we deny qualified but lower-scoring individuals the opportunity to volunteer while forcing many college-bound youths to disrupt their lives involuntarily? Wouldn`t we be better served to find incentives to recruit volunteers from the college-bound group? A ``quality draft`` means establishing direct or indirect quotas to exclude qualified but lower-scoring individuals who, Defense Department studies show, will be disproportionately from minority groups? Is this what draft advocates want?

The volunteer system has had salutary effects on military manpower management, costs and combat readiness. Recruit quality is very high, retention is high and the professional career force has grown. The number of reservists assigned to units in the selected reserve has grown by about 22 percent since 1980 and is now at its highest level. Commanders say manpower quality is excellent.

The services may have problems recruiting and retaining people in the future as they face the youth-population decline and a robust economy, especially if pay, benefits and incentives are allowed to erode. Well-intentioned Gramm-Rudman budget cuts are the most serious threat to the volunteer concept.